Okay, first I have to throw out the obligatory "Oh my god this will be expensive at today's gas prices!" tripe, and I'll even offer the usual, "Not too easy to park, and not a very good city vehicle" meanderings. Now that we've got that unpleasantness behind us I can say something surprising -- I like this vehicle, and one of the things I like about it is (drum roll please...) the interior materials quality!! No, it's not exactly Audi-rivaling, but for a large pick-up (yes, it's not really
a pick-up, but give me a break already) the materials are near the top of the class. I was driving it about five minutes and I looked down at the door panel and thought, "Hmm, that texture looks
nice, but I bet it's pretty hard and brittle." The I pushed on it and tapped my ring against it and damned if it wasn't soft touch...
Then I looked at the door panel insert (near the armrest/release handle) and thought, "Okay, well you are likely to rest your arm on top of the door panel, but that area in there has got to be hard plastic." Then I pushed and tapped on it -- and it wasn't. Not very GM-like (at least traditional GM-like) to worry about the materials you aren't even particularly likely to touch! And all through my tapping and pressing I'm driving the car and enjoying the upgraded rack-and-pinion steering and coil spring suspension that all of GM's full-size SUVs got for '07. So while the Avalanche's dimensions remain huge, it drives like a much smaller vehicle (something I've been praising about Toyota's and Honda's SUVs for years). The dash plastic is still harder than I'd like, but compared to a Ram, F-150 or Titan it's just fine (my standards for SUV interior materials are a bit higher...). And of course our test car had the killer audio system that features logical controls (all praise the tuning knob!) and a bright LCD screen. Like the rest of this truck, the interior is huge, so you could easily haul five full-sized adults if necessary. Plus it's fast. I don't need a truck and I spend too much time in traffic-snarled L.A., so I still don't want one of these. But put me in Jackson Hole with large items to regularly haul around and sign me up for an '07 Avalanche. Bodes well for the new Silverado and Sierra coming soon. Nice work guys!
By rsholland
on June 23, 2006
08:37 AM
If I were in the market for a full-size truck, this would be it, or at least at the top of my short list.
Unlike the Tahoe and Suburban, my criticism of the lack of a fold-into-the floor rear seat doesn't exist. It's also shorter than a Chevy 1500 crew cab, which helps.
Two criticisms:
1) The very useful steps on the side of the rear bumper that the old Avalanche are now gone. Those steps made getting in the bed much easier when the tailgate was lowered. I think deleting them was a mistake.
2) No longer is the Avalanche offered in the HD 3/4-ton model. I guess the demand was just too low for this model.
By editor_karl
on June 23, 2006
02:40 PM
Your point number 2 is interesting to me in that, after driving the Avalanche home and getting out of it, I looked at it again and thought "Geez, this thing is HUGE. Is this the 3/4-ton model?" Then I realized that part of the reason its visible appearance surprised me was because it drove so much smaller than it looked. That said, it's still a pretty big truck. I'm sure there are people who could actually use an even bigger version of this vehicle, but that number has to be pretty low. The "small" version would easily serve just about any truck-like purpose I can think of.
By rsholland
on June 23, 2006
08:20 PM
It's not so much an issue of being bigger, as the 3/4-ton would be the same size. It's more a case of it driving more like a "truck;" stiffer ride, lower gas mileage, etc.
As I mentioned the previous model was also offered in 3/4-ton format. It was basically built on the 3/4-ton Suburban chassis. If offered it would have a higher payload and more towing capability than the 1/2-ton model, and most likely come standard with the 6.0L engine that the 3/4-ton Suburban gets.
By rsholland
on June 24, 2006
06:08 AM
Karl, do you know if Edmunds has a Ridgeline vs. Avalanche comparo in the works? To me this seems like a no-brainer, as both vehicles appear to have similar mission statements.
The Avalanche can tow more, but did you know the Ridgeline actually has a higher payload rating? I think this would be a good opportunity to see if the average customer for this type of vehicle really needs the size that the Avalanche offers. If you tow a larger trailer then the answer is obvious, but other than that I suspect the Ridgeline will be as good if not better than the Avalanche. I bet the interior room of both vehicles are quite close to one another.
I understand there will be a new Ridgeline RTX trim level for '07, which will have a standard tow package and a few other minor upgrades. This might be a good time to retest the infamous "strut" issue you guys had with your earlier test vehicle.
By navigator89
on June 28, 2006
12:55 AM
It's good to see that GM has finally nailed it with their full size trucks and SUVs. Really, these new vehicles are so much better than the outgoing ones. I think they've finally become class leaders, leaving behind the Expedition, Armada, Durango, and Sequoia to bite the dust.
I'm not sure if a Ridgeline vs. Avalanche comparison is best. They're different in size, weight, abilities, engines, etc. Why not Ridgeline vs. Explorer Sport Trac?
By rsholland
on June 28, 2006
05:51 AM
"I'm not sure if a Ridgeline vs. Avalanche comparison is best. They're different in size, weight, abilities, engines, etc. "
I still think they will be cross-shopped. I only see greater towing capability as the big advantage of the Avalanche. Other than that, they're both targeted at Harry Homeowner.
"Why not Ridgeline vs. Explorer Sport Trac?"
Yep, that too.
By rsholland
on June 28, 2006
05:55 AM
One more advantage of the Avalanche: It also has a part-time low range and part-time high range as well as auto 4WD high, so it should be a better off-road vehicle too. Still, I think many viewers would welcome a Avalanche vs. Ridgeline comparo.
By 1487
on June 28, 2006
02:47 PM
I am shocked that this vehicle got an endorsement from you of all people Karl, but I do have to wonder why you are surprised about the interior if its the same as the Tahoe/Yukon. Havent you been in those vehicles or the Escalade yet?
Also, how many decent interiors does GM have to make before people stop saying "I was shocked this interior wasnt cheap". I mean the GTO, Lucerne, Impala, Tahoe, Sky, Torrent, STS, Escalade, etc all came out before this. This isnt the first time.
By moparbad
on July 1, 2006
09:32 PM
Drive a Colorado or Canyon, you will remember CHEAP and forget all about the progress made with the Avalanche.
The Canyon/Colorado is not even up to the standards of the ancient Ranger.
By chevy598
on December 7, 2006
08:36 PM
Most people that need more suspension are going to buy a traditional truck. Their is only so much hauling area even with the mid gate down that a half ton should get the job done. If you need to haul plywood all day your going to want a real truck bed and most people that tow a camper are driving 4 door HD's.